The Future

[Carrie]

I just finished a book by Max Brooks called "World War Z". First zombie book I've read and I love it as much as the zombie movies. The first thing I thought when I finished it was "I wish GAR would make this into a movie!" It is a collection of interviews with survivors. After watching Diary, which I enjoyed, I think he'd do a great job of bringing this book to film.

[Dillinger]

I'd rather see Romero make the original script for Day of the Dead. If I was him, i'd write Land and Diary off as losses and lock them in a vault somewhere far, far away. I didn't give a damn about any character in Land or Diary. In fact, I disliked the characters so much I wanted them all to suffer horrible, bloody deaths. I would like to see Day (still my favorite) done right or something altogether new, but still a continuation of the Night, Dawn, Day universe. If those two things are impossible, i'd like Romero do another film like The Crazies. EDIT: A remake of Martin (with an actual budget this time) would be kind of cool too.

[Dead Hoosier]

World War Z is coming to life, but via Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment company. Should be a winner.

[clanglee]

Alright, this is twice that I've heard the whole "the subtext is what makes romero zombie movies great" thing. I must respectfully disagree. The subtext in Night was completely accidental, and the subtext in Dawn was obvious but not overpowering and largely secondary to the story. The message in Day was well done, told through the story, and once again, not overpowering, just kinda there if you want to look a bit deeper. But in all these films, the subtext is largely put on the movie by the audience, and not George himself. Then we come to Bland. George has been told by all his fans "Oh George, please make another zombie movie. We love your social comentary and how very deep your movies are. . . " So George finally gives us another zombie movie. . . . and proceeds to beat us about the head and ears with obvious and singular "social comentary" and fails to deliver the zombies. So he tried the making a movie for the social commentary thing, and it fails(IMO). So does he go back to basics? Put zombies first and message second? No Diary comes out and this time he shoves the message at us from all angles. Uncle George is like. . "here comes the subtext choo-choo!! open wide!!" I am not an infant or an idiot. I don't need my messages spoonfed. And while I do admit that George's STORIES are what makes his films great. He used to better at working his message into a GOOD story. The main reason I like zombie films is zombies. I like to see how people react to the situation and what they will do. I like the stories. Not the social comentary. Ummmm. . .so sorry about that. . . went off on a bit of a rant there. No more tequila for me tonight.

[capncnut]

I just finished a book by Max Brooks called "World War Z". First zombie book I've read and I love it as much as the zombie movies. The first thing I thought when I finished it was "I wish GAR would make this into a movie!" WWZ is currently in the process of being scripted for a movie with a projected release date of 2009/10. A lot of people here are excited about it.

[Trin]

Alright, this is twice that I've heard the whole "the subtext is what makes romero zombie movies great" thing. I must respectfully disagree. The subtext in Night was completely accidental, and the subtext in Dawn was obvious but not overpowering and largely secondary to the story. The message in Day was well done, told through the story, and once again, not overpowering, just kinda there if you want to look a bit deeper. But in all these films, the subtext is largely put on the movie by the audience, and not George himself. Then we come to Bland. George has been told by all his fans "Oh George, please make another zombie movie. We love your social comentary and how very deep your movies are. . . " So George finally gives us another zombie movie. . . . and proceeds to beat us about the head and ears with obvious and singular "social comentary" and fails to deliver the zombies. So he tried the making a movie for the social commentary thing, and it fails(IMO). So does he go back to basics? Put zombies first and message second? No Diary comes out and this time he shoves the message at us from all angles. Uncle George is like. . "here comes the subtext choo-choo!! open wide!!" I am not an infant or an idiot. I don't need my messages spoonfed. And while I do admit that George's STORIES are what makes his films great. He used to better at working his message into a GOOD story. The main reason I like zombie films is zombies. I like to see how people react to the situation and what they will do. I like the stories. Not the social comentary. Ummmm. . .so sorry about that. . . went off on a bit of a rant there. No more tequila for me tonight. This post about sums up all my thoughts and frustrations with GAR's commentary. I particulary like how you've noted the change in perception his commentary has undergone through the years. Few people really get how little the commentary was discussed back when the movies were released. And how GAR refuted any notion that the commentary was intentional. Oh how the story has changed. And woe is all of us GAR zombie fans for that change. So I'll raise my shot of tequila to you. Well said clang!! Well said!!

[Redman6565]

I think GAR has taken this stuff way to serious. Come on, it's zombie movies. Lighten up. Some fans are the problem behind this. They put so much thought into this nonsense it ruins the movies. The reason I like both Dawn's is the fact that they threw the problem in your face and had a deal with it attitude. I couldn't care less about any social babble that may or may not be there.

[EvilNed]

Alright, this is twice that I've heard the whole "the subtext is what makes romero zombie movies great" thing. I must respectfully disagree. The subtext in Night was completely accidental, and the subtext in Dawn was obvious but not overpowering and largely secondary to the story. The message in Day was well done, told through the story, and once again, not overpowering, just kinda there if you want to look a bit deeper. But in all these films, the subtext is largely put on the movie by the audience, and not George himself. As it is with ALL movies, and is exactly why art is subjective. You cannot say that the subtext isn't there, and isn't important. Because to some it is vastly important. To others it is not. Wether the artist intended it or not, films will always, always reflect the mind of the director. Wether he is aware of it or not. And thus it opens up for endless discussion. Wether the subtext was intended or not doesn't really matter. It's still there.

[clanglee]

As it is with ALL movies, and is exactly why art is subjective. You cannot say that the subtext isn't there, and isn't important. Because to some it is vastly important. To others it is not. Wether the artist intended it or not, films will always, always reflect the mind of the director. Wether he is aware of it or not. And thus it opens up for endless discussion. Wether the subtext was intended or not doesn't really matter. It's still there. But to make movies now, focusing on the message, just because the audience says that the subtext is what was great about your movies in the first place, causes the movies to suffer. And to say that without the social commentary, GAR's movies would just be another stupid zombie movie is ill informed and bandwagony.(new word) Zombie movies can be great, as long as the story is good. The story doesn't have to be ABOUT the social commentary though. When you do that, the movie becomes obviously preachy and . . well. . . less enjoyable.

[EvilNed]

But to make movies now, focusing on the message, just because the audience says that the subtext is what was great about your movies in the first place, causes the movies to suffer. True. I always enjoyed the psychological aspects of the films more. But the last film used complete stereotype characters.

[clanglee]

True. I always enjoyed the psychological aspects of the films more. But the last film used complete stereotype characters. Very much so.

[Trin]

I like the whole "movies are art and the audience gets from it what they will" argument. That was true for Night, Dawn, and Day. But GAR was a storyteller back then. Recent GAR movies don't work so well with that argument because the commentary IS the story. It's no longer a subtext. It's no longer a reflection of the events and times. Let's face it - looking for meaning in a GAR movie these days is like fishing a pay lake. You know you're going to catch something before you ever bait your line because they stock the damn thing so full you can't cast and NOT catch something.

[clanglee]

Excellent analogy Trin!

[jim102016]

WWZ is currently in the process of being scripted for a movie with a projected release date of 2009/10. A lot of people here are excited about it. WWZ does sound interesting. I just hope it isn't overshadowed by some pro-Hollywood message.